What is the woman's role in the family and church?

myst33 said:

We are not allowed to accomodate God's order according to some development in the world's society. Feminism, communism, sexual revolution, this is all against God's order - man is the head of woman.

Click to expand...

Human nature is fraught with bias and it's unrealistic to divorce ourselves from this truth. While the bible has provided a wonderful blueprint for life it has also been misused to justify horrible actions towards others. If you have fixed your course on certain principles and remain rigid in your mindset you'll find validation in everything you encounter.

Headship is godly rulership not supremacy. To rule in light of the cross requires deference and sacrifice. Christ did not laud His position over others or undermine their potential or worth. Headship is not about ego nor is submission subservience in disguise.

myst33 said:

Also childrens submission to parents or slaves to masters or all people to kings etc.

I guess you have a problem with all of these, unless the one to whom you are to be submitted is doing what you want.

Yes, you realized that Christianity (regarding our place in society) is not about social equality, its about being in peace with traditional authorities as much as possible.

Click to expand...

Thankfully, most Christians don’t believe that slaves should submit to masters or children should submit to abusive parents. We believe that anyone being abused should be freed from that abuse. Nor do most people believe in monarchical forms of government, we see democracy as the ideal. It is 2019, right?

Endeavourer said:

I'm curious about your understanding of how Christ modeled submission to his traditional authorities, the Pharisees.

Click to expand...

myst33 said:

"So you must be careful to do everything they (pharisees) tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."
Mt 23:3

I hope this answers your question. Jesus was never against authorities, He never preached not to obey.

Click to expand...

Looking at your verse in context, it is fair to assume scribes and Pharisees were in the multitude hearing these comments since they followed him searching for grounds to eliminate him. Is Jesus' modeling here compliant with your idea of how a "submissive" wife would address her husband?

One on this thread has advocated for a book that teaches UNCONDITIONAL submission. That is in the face of Jesus' modeling here:

Matthew 23:
1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
18 And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.
19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?
20 Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.
21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.
22 And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.
23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

JacksBratt said:

I don't think women should ever be denigrated... If a woman can do a job... fully complete all the responsibilities of it and competently... she should do the job and have the same pay as anyone else doing that job..
On the other hand.. this is not the same as her role as a wife... in a biblical marriage..again... a "biblical" marriage with a "biblical" God fearing man who upholds his duties, responsibilities as a proper husband.

Remember, women are to respect their husband... Husbands are demanded to love their wives...

Click to expand...

But if the husband doesn’t love the wife like Christ loved the church, she must still submit?

JacksBratt said:

Remember, women are to respect their husband... Husbands are demanded to love their wives...

Click to expand...

Sparagmos said:

But if the husband doesn’t love the wife like Christ loved the church, she must still submit?

Click to expand...

JacksBratt's reference is to the book Love and Respect by Eggerichs. In that book, Eggerichs states:

Endeavourer said:

JacksBratt's reference is to the book Love and Respect by Eggerichs. In that book, Eggerichs states:

“This is not about the husband deserving respect; it’s about the wife being willing to treat her husband respectfully WITHOUT CONDITIONS.” (p. 18)

“A simple application is that a wife is to display a respectful facial expression and tone when he fails to be the man she wants.” (p. 43)

“As I encourage some wives to use unconditional respect, I can tell they suspect that I am a chauvinist in sheep’s clothing trying to set them up for a life of subservience. I remind such a wife to be patient.” (p. 75)
​

Click to expand...

A sure recipe for abuse.

Endeavourer said:

JacksBratt's reference is to the book Love and Respect by Eggerichs. In that book, Eggerichs states:

“This is not about the husband deserving respect; it’s about the wife being willing to treat her husband respectfully WITHOUT CONDITIONS.” (p. 18)

“A simple application is that a wife is to display a respectful facial expression and tone when he fails to be the man she wants.” (p. 43)

“As I encourage some wives to use unconditional respect, I can tell they suspect that I am a chauvinist in sheep’s clothing trying to set them up for a life of subservience. I remind such a wife to be patient.” (p. 75)
​

Click to expand...

Does he define "respectful" anywhere? And does he mention whether there are any exceptions for husbands who come home and knock their wife's teeth out? Or blacken her eye...again?

Because if he doesn't do either of those things, the book is worse than a roadkill pizza.

No Username Found said:

What would be your solution regarding scripture?

Click to expand...

I’m not sure what you mean. I think the situation has been solved, with the principle of gender equality. Very few women under 40 subscribe to the idea that they should submit to their husbands or withstand abuse.

Brightmoon said:

The scary thing to me is that religious racists and homophobes use the similar justifications for their misogyny as they do for the racism and the homophobia.

Click to expand...

JacksBratt said:

As a side note... "Homophobia" is not a "phobia" it is an unwillingness to accept it to be normal... not a fear of it...

Click to expand...

Sorry sir, the word 'phobia' is absolutely a fear, even tending to an irrational fear. Here are the first five hits on an internet search for the definition of phobia:

Miriam Webster Dictionary:
an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation

Free Dictionary:
A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.

Dictionary.com:
a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.

Medicine.net:
An unreasonable sort of fear that can cause avoidance and panic.

Cambridge Dictionary:
an extreme fear or dislike of a particular thing or situation, especially one that cannot be reasonably explained:

JacksBratt said:

The term "Homophobia" is used by the homosexual crowd as a condescension and insult.... When they are actually fighting to be accepted by alienating others.

Click to expand...

So apparently either @Brightmoon is not intelligent enough to know how to use a widely understood term, or she is from the "homosexual crowd"?

???

myst33 said:

Yes. I would not say "less evil", but "less prone to error".
Why are you asking still the same question? I already answered that I agree with some elements, but probably not with any whole quotation. You somehow cannot get over it.

Click to expand...

I continue to ask the question because your answer is vague and noncommittal. Those quotes show that Church fathers did not have the same analysis of the scripture that modern proponents of “headship” do. They demonstrate that men of that time used the Bible to promote the denigration of women. They fully believed that men were superior to women. There is no love in those quotes. There is no recognition of the value of feminine traits, only disdain for them. The origin of your doctrine is rotten and it isn’t of god.

Daniel C said:

Men who are emotional have usually been raised in environments where they've had no positive male role models and been shown only emotional behaviour,from women around them. The type of setting this would happen in is a single mother household,all female teachers, girlfriend or wife nag them and try to rule over them,women around them trying to soften the boy/man and the end result is a tender girly emotional 'man'.

Click to expand...

Hmm... I had several positive male role models. There was not only my Dad, but also a good uncle, scout leaders, baseball coaches, ministers, and school teachers.

archer75 said:

Does he define "respectful" anywhere? And does he mention whether there are any exceptions for husbands who come home and knock their wife's teeth out? Or blacken her eye...again?

Because if he doesn't do either of those things, the book is worse than a roadkill pizza.

Click to expand...

According to experts on domestic abuse, and those ministering to abused wives, it is extremely unlikely that men who hit their wives repent from their ways. Abuse is a form of control. The person feeling entitled to control might apologize for a particular instance, but their mindset of entitlement is not changed.

Eggerich's work is not safe for women because in it, he does not demonstrate any understanding at all of abuse. His advice above is a classic illustration - assuming that the instance of repentance would now make her safe from his further abuse.

As far as their relationship improving considerably, if you're married to a wife beater, the less you will keep you safer from the blows. So she was abused less when she stood up for herself less. But does that improve a marriage???

He instead teaches women how to better subject themselves to abuse. Many abuse experts, book reviewers and bloggers have criticized his work on this account.

Daniel C said:

I think women by their very nature are emotional. PLEASE NOTE,this is not a bad thing but for some reason many people perceive it as such. Women are emotional by design,it's a fact. Look at the phases women go through during pregnancy and the monthly, this is emotional.

Some men are emotional but I don't accept this is their natural state. Mens natural state is non-emotional. Men have emotions but not emotional ruled like women. Men can be focused and stress resistant on a level women cannot be because of our non-emotional nature.

Men who are emotional have usually been raised in environments where they've had no positive male role models and been shown only emotional behaviour,from women around them. The type of setting this would happen in is a single mother household,all female teachers, girlfriend or wife nag them and try to rule over them,women around them trying to soften the boy/man and the end result is a tender girly emotional 'man'.

No, men by their nature are not emotional but can be manipulated into soft men unless they are mentally strong.

A good way to maintain masculine form is to spend (some) time away from women altogether either with self or males only.

Click to expand...

If it's their nature, why do they need to "maimtain masculine form"?

Endeavourer said:

On page 278, he shares a letter he received from a “wife who had suffered physical and verbal abuse from her husband — which I absolutely condemn as wicked and urge a wife to seek protection and help for — she had gone back to him after he repented, realized she hadn’t completely forgiven him and certainly wasn’t showing him respect. After coming across our materials, she began showing him respect — mostly by remaining quiet and dignified instead of arguing. Their relationship improved considerably.”
​

According to experts on domestic abuse, and those ministering to abused wives, it is extremely unlikely that men who hit their wives repent from their ways. Abuse is a form of control. The person feeling entitled to control might apologize for a particular instance, but their mindset of entitlement is not changed.

Eggerich's work is not safe for women because in it, he does not demonstrate any understanding at all of abuse. His advice above is a classic illustration - assuming that the instance of repentance would now make her safe from his further abuse.

As far as their relationship improving considerably, if you're married to a wife beater, the less you will keep you safer from the blows. So she was abused less when she stood up for herself less. But does that improve a marriage???

He instead teaches women how to better subject themselves to abuse. Many abuse experts, book reviewers and bloggers have criticized his work on this account.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the quote. That trash is all I needed to compose my own review:

The book is poison masquerading as medicine. If you have a copy, toss it in the trash. End.

Ttalkkugjil said:

Hmm... I had several positive male role models. There was not only my Dad, but also a good uncle, scout leaders, baseball coaches, ministers, and school teachers.

Click to expand...

Are you an emotional man?

archer75 said:

Because if he doesn't do either of those things, the book is worse than a roadkill pizza.

Click to expand...

John Piper is a founding member of the CBMW (Council of 'b'iblical Manhood and Womanhood). He is part of the crowd preaching the same message as Eggerichs.

Here he advises a woman to submissively and sweetly entreat her abuser to treat her better, and even applying such to a woman who is in danger of taking a blow:


Here are his relevant comments:

"Part of that answer is clearly going to depend on what kind of abuse we’re dealing with here, how serious this is. Is her life in danger? Or is this verbal unkindness?
...
"So if this man, for example, is calling her to engage in abusive acts willingly (group sex or something really weird, bizarre, harmful, that clearly would be sin), then the way she submits—I really think this is possible, though it’s kind of paradoxical—is that she’s not going to go there.
...
"She’s going to say, however, something like, “Honey, I want so much to follow you as my leader. God calls me to do that, and I would love to do that. It would be sweet to me if I could enjoy your leadership. But if you ask me to do this, require this of me, then I can’t go there.”
..
"If it’s not requiring her to sin but simply hurting her, then I think she endures verbal abuse for a season, and she endures perhaps being smacked one night, and then she seeks help from the church."

archer75 said:

If it's their nature, why do they need to "maimtain masculine form"?

Click to expand...

I explained in the post. If men are raised and live in emotional environments then they can be manipulated into a false nature.

We are living in a feminised era so the culture is pandering to female/emotional needs. To counter this it is necessary for men to remove ourselves from it or else be consumed by it.

Endeavourer said:

Eggerich's work is not safe for women because in it, he does not demonstrate any understanding at all of abuse. His advice above is a classic illustration - assuming that the instance of repentance would now make her safe from his further abuse.

Click to expand...

I read the book and many others which support biblical womanhood. I don't believe its a precursor for domestic abuse nor have I been subject to it prior to reading the book or since its consumption.

I would not expect a godly mandate to be wisely enforced by someone lacking reverence for its Creator or His creation. His emphasis on self supersedes them each.

Headship with a man of good character who loves and cherishes his wife is the outcome God intended. It is unfortunate that the men who forsake that charge receive greater attention than those who are guided by its principles.

Sparagmos said:

But if the husband doesn’t love the wife like Christ loved the church, she must still submit?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, yes:

1 Peter 3:1-6 New International Version (NIV)
3 Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. 4 Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. 5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, 6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

Endeavourer said:

JacksBratt's reference is to the book Love and Respect by Eggerichs. In that book, Eggerichs states:

“This is not about the husband deserving respect; it’s about the wife being willing to treat her husband respectfully WITHOUT CONDITIONS.” (p. 18)

“A simple application is that a wife is to display a respectful facial expression and tone when he fails to be the man she wants.” (p. 43)

“As I encourage some wives to use unconditional respect, I can tell they suspect that I am a chauvinist in sheep’s clothing trying to set them up for a life of subservience. I remind such a wife to be patient.” (p. 75)
​

Click to expand...

I think that the biggest reason for this system falling apart is the basic distance that each generation gets from the biblical truths.

Men don't have men to raise them to be men.

Women have a society telling them that they don't need men.